Media/older generation's perception that games are for kids and how this can be changed

OrangeRKN wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:until they're able to invent a mainstream gameplay mechanic that doesn't involve acting like an utter psychopath

Fifa and racing games spring to mind

Have you ever played a racing game online?

Gemini73 wrote:It's more to do with the core mechanics of games that haven't really evolved. For example, strip back Uncharted 4's aesthetic and you find nothing has really changed since any other action/adventure game from 20 odd years ago. I think that was the point the author was making. For me it would certainly explain why I'm not as thrilled by many of the new games being released as perhaps I once was. A case of been there, done that.

If you strip it right back to controlling a character progressing through linear 3D environments while defeating enemies and traversing environmental obstacles, where it is possible to fail by getting hit by enemies or messing up those obstacles, then okay I agree.

But that's like a base genre definition for an action adventure game. Uncharted's experience as a game is unique from anything made 20 years ago that I've ever played or seen and it's design throughout is markedly modern.

Are there less novel genre experiences than in the past? Yes, but that's due to the maturation of the medium. When was the last time you saw a film that you couldn't pigeonhole into an existing genre or some combination of existing genres?

NickSCFC wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:It's more to do with the core mechanics of games that haven't really evolved. For example, strip back Uncharted 4's aesthetic and you find nothing has really changed since any other action/adventure game from 20 odd years ago. I think that was the point the author was making. For me it would certainly explain why I'm not as thrilled by many of the new games being released as perhaps I once was. A case of been there, done that.

There's definitely a lack of big budget mature games that aren't centred around violence. I'd love a big budget investigation game like a modern day Broken Sword but with graphics and controls similar to Uncharted or Resi 4.

How many big budget mature movies are there that are not centred around violence?

Knoyleo wrote:

NickSCFC wrote:

The video completely fails to recognise that the actual gameplay hasn't matured at all though. Progress in both games can only be achieved by killing your way forwards, with body counts well into the multiple hundreds. As much as people might want games to be considered a normal entertainment medium, until they're able to invent a mainstream gameplay mechanic that doesn't involve acting like an utter psychopath, they'll continue to be viewed as an immature medium, that's invaluable of dealing with the dissonance of having sane and relatable characters, who have to do insane and unrelatable things. Meanwhile, hardcore gamers will shriek about games without combat just being walking simulators, and they get relegated to niche indie status.

Can't you say that about most successful big budget movies? There's always violence and guns at the centre.

I can see what you're getting at though, I'd love a big budget detective game, like a better executed Heavy Rain or LA Noire

Trelliz wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:until they're able to invent a mainstream gameplay mechanic that doesn't involve acting like an utter psychopath

Fifa and racing games spring to mind

Have you ever played a racing game online?

I was waiting for a response like this

IAmTheSaladMan wrote:I think some generations will simply never get video games or see them as a valid form of entertainment. The lady who sits opposite me at work who I think is in her late 50's is always telling me I need to get out more whenever I mention video games whereas she is always talking about shite she watches on TV.

Why is shite TV considered a valid form of entertainment but as a gamer I need to get out more?

While both are passive forms of entertainment I would argue that vegging out in front of tele, watching Strictly Come Dancing while stuffing your face with chips is far worse for one's physical and mental health than the more interactive engagement of playing a video game.

Or you could just tell the silly tart to shut the strawberry float up.

Moggy wrote:How many big budget mature movies are there that are not centred around violence?

NickSCFC wrote:Can't you say that about most successful big budget movies? There's always violence and guns at the centre.

I can see what you're getting at though, I'd love a big budget detective game, like a better executed Heavy Rain or LA Noire

Outside of superhero movies, where whole cities are destroyed, presumably with millions killed, just so there's a cool backdrop as two men in spandex roll around on the floor with each other, the bodycount in most violent movies might total somewhere in the dozens. More importantly, the characters reflect this, and killing is generally presented as part of their story arc, while Nathan Drake is a loveable, well meaning rogue in cutscenes, but tantamount to a war criminal in the gameplay. The dissonance in the latest Tomb Raider reboot trilogy is even worse.

Gemini73 wrote:

IAmTheSaladMan wrote:I think some generations will simply never get video games or see them as a valid form of entertainment. The lady who sits opposite me at work who I think is in her late 50's is always telling me I need to get out more whenever I mention video games whereas she is always talking about shite she watches on TV.

Why is shite TV considered a valid form of entertainment but as a gamer I need to get out more?

While both are passive forms of entertainment I would argue that vegging out in front of tele, watching Strictly Come Dancing while stuffing your face with chips is far worse for one's physical and mental health than the more interactive engagement of playing a video game.

Or you could just tell the silly tart to shut the strawberry float up.

What's wrong with Strictly?

OrangeRKN wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:It's more to do with the core mechanics of games that haven't really evolved. For example, strip back Uncharted 4's aesthetic and you find nothing has really changed since any other action/adventure game from 20 odd years ago. I think that was the point the author was making. For me it would certainly explain why I'm not as thrilled by many of the new games being released as perhaps I once was. A case of been there, done that.

If you strip it right back to controlling a character progressing through linear 3D environments while defeating enemies and traversing environmental obstacles, where it is possible to fail by getting hit by enemies or messing up those obstacles, then okay I agree.

But that's like a base genre definition for an action adventure game. Uncharted's experience as a game is unique from anything made 20 years ago that I've ever played or seen and it's design throughout is markedly modern.

Are there less novel genre experiences than in the past? Yes, but that's due to the maturation of the medium. When was the last time you saw a film that you couldn't pigeonhole into an existing genre or some combination of existing genres?

True, but there are far more movies that break the mould and are widely accepted than there are video games. Of course film has the luxury of having been around much longer, but for games to become more widely accepted then the (often correct) perception that they're just full of blood, guns and explosions needs to change and that begins with the industry itself. Just look at the Tomb Raider reboots. Did they really need to turn the franchise into a ultra violent, brooding, shooting gallery? No, but that's what they did. In its bid to become more widely accepted the industry is its own worst enemy I feel.

In rebuke to my own previous question, Spider-man is a AAA "mature" game as throughout my play so far (apart from the people I hurled off skyscrapers and the ones I've almost certainly paralysed for life) I don't think I've actually KILLED anyone.

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:How many big budget mature movies are there that are not centred around violence?

NickSCFC wrote:Can't you say that about most successful big budget movies? There's always violence and guns at the centre.

I can see what you're getting at though, I'd love a big budget detective game, like a better executed Heavy Rain or LA Noire

Outside of superhero movies, where whole cities are destroyed, presumably with millions killed, just so there's a cool backdrop as two men in spandex roll around on the floor with each other, the bodycount in most violent movies might total somewhere in the dozens. More importantly, the characters reflect this, and killing is generally presented as part of their story arc, while Nathan Drake is a loveable, well meaning rogue in cutscenes, but tantamount to a war criminal in the gameplay. The dissonance in the latest Tomb Raider reboot trilogy is even worse.

You have dismissed superhero movies, but they are a great example of big budget movies that kill thousands of people and make a fortune at the box office.

The biggest movie of all time was Avatar, which depicts the genocide of a native population.

The Star Wars movies result in the deaths of millions/billions thanks to the Death Star and the weapon in TFA.

I’ve only seen the first Transformers movie, but I would imagine thousands of people are killed when the smashy metal monsters have a scrap.

Disaster movies (whether Independence Day aliens, San Andreas earthquakes or 2012 end of the world) kill millions.

Games and movies are different mediums and AAA games do rely on killing, but let’s not pretend that big budget movies don’t also rely on violence and mass deaths.

Perhaps part of the problem then is looking at action adventure games as representative of the entire medium, which probably comes about because many big budget and mainstream games fall into that category. The search for mature storytelling and meaningful themes and narratives shouldn't be confined to action adventure games, much like you wouldn't only look at summer blockbusters to fill that role in film. I think the reason we end up looking to action adventure games to fulfill these roles is because they can be easily structured as a linear story and are much less abstract than say trying to tackle the human condition through a puzzle game.

Moggy wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:How many big budget mature movies are there that are not centred around violence?

NickSCFC wrote:Can't you say that about most successful big budget movies? There's always violence and guns at the centre.

I can see what you're getting at though, I'd love a big budget detective game, like a better executed Heavy Rain or LA Noire

Outside of superhero movies, where whole cities are destroyed, presumably with millions killed, just so there's a cool backdrop as two men in spandex roll around on the floor with each other, the bodycount in most violent movies might total somewhere in the dozens. More importantly, the characters reflect this, and killing is generally presented as part of their story arc, while Nathan Drake is a loveable, well meaning rogue in cutscenes, but tantamount to a war criminal in the gameplay. The dissonance in the latest Tomb Raider reboot trilogy is even worse.

You have dismissed superhero movies, but they are a great example of big budget movies that kill thousands of people and make a fortune at the box office.

The biggest movie of all time was Avatar, which depicts the genocide of a native population.

The Star Wars movies result in the deaths of millions/billions thanks to the Death Star and the weapon in TFA.

I’ve only seen the first Transformers movie, but I would imagine thousands of people are killed when the smashy metal monsters have a scrap.

Disaster movies (whether Independence Day aliens, San Andreas earthquakes or 2012 end of the world) kill millions.

Games and movies are different mediums and AAA games do rely on killing, but let’s not pretend that big budget movies don’t also rely on violence and mass deaths.

You're talking about disaster movies, and films that imply a lot more violence than is actually screened, though. 3rd person action games don't just have this hyper violence in the background as part of the setting. You carry it out as the player.

Typically if movies do use mass violence/death, it's at least justified by the plot, and typically carried out by more than just the protagonist. Typically the antagonist will be more violent than the hero. What film, if any, expects an audience to watch a single character gun down hundreds of others, rooting for them, then laugh at them doing some slapstick gag 5 minutes later, without being an actual parody.

Moggy wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:How many big budget mature movies are there that are not centred around violence?

NickSCFC wrote:Can't you say that about most successful big budget movies? There's always violence and guns at the centre.

I can see what you're getting at though, I'd love a big budget detective game, like a better executed Heavy Rain or LA Noire

Outside of superhero movies, where whole cities are destroyed, presumably with millions killed, just so there's a cool backdrop as two men in spandex roll around on the floor with each other, the bodycount in most violent movies might total somewhere in the dozens. More importantly, the characters reflect this, and killing is generally presented as part of their story arc, while Nathan Drake is a loveable, well meaning rogue in cutscenes, but tantamount to a war criminal in the gameplay. The dissonance in the latest Tomb Raider reboot trilogy is even worse.

You have dismissed superhero movies, but they are a great example of big budget movies that kill thousands of people and make a fortune at the box office.

The biggest movie of all time was Avatar, which depicts the genocide of a native population.

The Star Wars movies result in the deaths of millions/billions thanks to the Death Star and the weapon in TFA.

I’ve only seen the first Transformers movie, but I would imagine thousands of people are killed when the smashy metal monsters have a scrap.

Disaster movies (whether Independence Day aliens, San Andreas earthquakes or 2012 end of the world) kill millions.

Games and movies are different mediums and AAA games do rely on killing, but let’s not pretend that big budget movies don’t also rely on violence and mass deaths.

To be fair, none of the deaths mentioned above are caused directly by the protagonist.

Knoyleo wrote:What film, if any, expects an audience to watch a single character gun down hundreds of others, rooting for them, then laugh at them doing some slapstick gag 5 minutes later, without being an actual parody.

The Bond movies?

Gemini73 wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:What film, if any, expects an audience to watch a single character gun down hundreds of others, rooting for them, then laugh at them doing some slapstick gag 5 minutes later, without being an actual parody.

The Bond movies?

I said no parodies

Gemini73 wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:What film, if any, expects an audience to watch a single character gun down hundreds of others, rooting for them, then laugh at them doing some slapstick gag 5 minutes later, without being an actual parody.

The Bond movies?

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

Moggy wrote:How many big budget mature movies are there that are not centred around violence?

NickSCFC wrote:Can't you say that about most successful big budget movies? There's always violence and guns at the centre.

I can see what you're getting at though, I'd love a big budget detective game, like a better executed Heavy Rain or LA Noire

Outside of superhero movies, where whole cities are destroyed, presumably with millions killed, just so there's a cool backdrop as two men in spandex roll around on the floor with each other, the bodycount in most violent movies might total somewhere in the dozens. More importantly, the characters reflect this, and killing is generally presented as part of their story arc, while Nathan Drake is a loveable, well meaning rogue in cutscenes, but tantamount to a war criminal in the gameplay. The dissonance in the latest Tomb Raider reboot trilogy is even worse.

You have dismissed superhero movies, but they are a great example of big budget movies that kill thousands of people and make a fortune at the box office.

The biggest movie of all time was Avatar, which depicts the genocide of a native population.

The Star Wars movies result in the deaths of millions/billions thanks to the Death Star and the weapon in TFA.

I’ve only seen the first Transformers movie, but I would imagine thousands of people are killed when the smashy metal monsters have a scrap.

Disaster movies (whether Independence Day aliens, San Andreas earthquakes or 2012 end of the world) kill millions.

Games and movies are different mediums and AAA games do rely on killing, but let’s not pretend that big budget movies don’t also rely on violence and mass deaths.

You're talking about disaster movies, and films that imply a lot more violence than is actually screened, though. 3rd person action games don't just have this hyper violence in the background as part of the setting. You carry it out as the player.

Typically if movies do use mass violence/death, it's at least justified by the plot, and typically carried out by more than just the protagonist. Typically the antagonist will be more violent than the hero. What film, if any, expects an audience to watch a single character gun down hundreds of others, rooting for them, then laugh at them doing some slapstick gag 5 minutes later, without being an actual parody.

You mentioned surperhero movies with presumably millions killed before dismissing them, which is why I mentioned the other types of movie. And I don’t think Star Wars, Transformers and Avatar count as disaster movies. Just how many innocent contractors on the Death Star did Luke Skywalker murder?

The difference is that movies and games are different mediums. The majority of a game follows the character the player is playing, the majority of a movie will be following several characters (good and evil) while also panning around to show other scenes of interest. Somebody playing a game wants something to do, just wandering through a jungle as Lara Croft would get boring quickly, especially as it is an action game series. Tomb Raider didn’t have much killing at first, but later instalments upped the guns and bad guy angle. Movies also do this just as in Rambo where the first film has hardly any killing and the later Rambo movies would butcher hundreds.

Knoyleo wrote:Typically if movies do use mass violence/death, it's at least justified by the plot, and typically carried out by more than just the protagonist. Typically the antagonist will be more violent than the hero. What film, if any, expects an audience to watch a single character gun down hundreds of others, rooting for them, then laugh at them doing some slapstick gag 5 minutes later, without being an actual parody.

Games are interactive though so you have to engage the player and involve them in the narrative. Enforcing player involvement probably means having success and failure states, and that's why most games have so much conflict in them. Fighting (and killing) enemies is one of the most obvious ways of having conflict that is resolved by the player in a non-abstract fashion and makes the game different to just being a film to begin with.

EDIT: What Moggy says above basically!

And just to give an answer to your actual question, Equilibrium is one of my favourite films and is noted for the number of on-screen kills by the main character

Moggy wrote:The difference is that movies and games are different mediums. The majority of a game follows the character the player is playing, the majority of a movie will be following several characters (good and evil) while also panning around to show other scenes of interest. Somebody playing a game wants something to do, just wandering through a jungle as Lara Croft would get boring quickly, especially as it is an action game series. Tomb Raider didn’t have much killing at first, but later instalments upped the guns and bad guy angle. Movies also do this just as in Rambo where the first film has hardly any killing and the later Rambo movies would butcher hundreds.

This alone would be boring in a movie too, so what is it that keeps people invested in movies that aren't been done in games?

The articles I linked describe how story, dialogue and characters have matured, yet if TOO MUCH emphasis was placed on those components, then I guess they'd cease to be games.